<p>My bet is that eventually MIT will require ASEs as the only means to get credit for a class. This would level the field and avoid some of the current problems with AP credits. Strong students would pass without problem and the marginal ones would not. Already under the proposed core, I would not be surprised if the physics department followed the lead of the chemistry and biology departments and required the ASE for a credit for 8.01 especially if 8.02 is no longer a GIR. The math department would eventually follow suit.</p>
<h2>said the scores on “average” on 18.02 of those who took AP credit for 18.01 were lower than those who did not. The top math performers are not included in the analysis as they easily pass the ASE for 18.02 and get credit for the class. The data is directly from the math department and I will get you the link. Even though the classes may have been taken pass/fail the grades were always available to the math department. Pledging for frats has nothing to do with the results it as it included students taking 18.02 during the same term. Even the students taking the 18.01/18.02 combo over fall/IAP did better than the students taking 18.02 in the fall of freshman year. The math department has long complained about the fact that getting a 5 on AP Calc is by itself no guarantee of adequate preparation for 18.02.</h2>
<h1>1) No one passes out of 18.01 and then waits until 2nd semester to take 18.02. No advisor would suggest it–it’s bizarre. So the people who pass out of 18.01 take 18.02 1st semester, and the ones that don’t take it 2nd semester. So pledging is still a big confounding variable that affects/affected more than half the guys.</h1>
<h1>2) A lot of people who are confident in their mastery of the material slack off on pass/fail, especially if they think they will never use the material again. In contrast, those with such little confidence in their background that they would take the long version of 8.01 or 18.01 probably are trying to do their best. I had taken all the classes I took 1st semester before, and I basically just showed up to the exams. Almost everyone I knew was slacking off, not doing HW, etc…</h1>
<p>The only way to do a valid study would be to look at people’s performance in a major that uses phyics or 18.02 (like a physics major or aerospace E) vs. whether they placed out of it first semester or second.</p>
<h1>3) How many of the faculty in the math department were actually MIT undergrads? My impression of the faculty is that they were pretty out-of-touch with what was going on or that they didn’t care. I’m sure they just looked at the grades and didn’t dig any deeper.</h1>
<p>One problem that I have with ASE’s (that can be fixed) is that the score for passing is too low. Either that or the problems are too easy. An MIT ASE should not suggest simply that you get the material, but that you have mastered it to the level of an MIT student. I’ve had friends get past 18.02/8.02 ASE’s not even having ever studied certain parts of the curriculem (they just got enough questions that they had learned about before correct so that they passed the cutoff score).</p>
<p>^^Are the Advanced Standing Exams harder than the AP tests? If not, then what’s the point of having them?</p>
<p>I kind of assumed the ASE’s were like the writing test you take when you get to MIT, where nearly everyone magically gets a score of 69, 1 point below passing. It seemed pretty bogus, like let’s give everyone 1 point below passing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Er, the pass rate on the FEE these days is well over 50%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You think that would be a valid study? How would you separate the component of their performance caused by understanding of 8.01/8.02/18.02 from the other components of their performance?</p>
<p>Soem ASEs like the chem ASE are notoriously hard with less than a 10% pass rate. I believe bio is about a 25% pass rate. I don’t have the stats for the other ones.</p>
<p>It doesn’t mean anything what percent of the incoming class can pass the ASE’s. You don’t change the standards of multivariable calculus based on how smart or dumb new students are.</p>